 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Are insurance companies the problem, not the solution... |
|
Page 9 of 11 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| *Anarcissie*... |
 Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 17, 3:01 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Anarcissie wrote:
There is no reason, though, why the cooperatives couldn't
cooperatively combine into one big cooperative for the
purpose of buying medical services. According to your
model they would be strongly motivated to do so.
Doesnt mean that those providing the medical services wouldnt just ignore
the combined coop which has nowhere else to go for the medical services.
[/quote]
You could say that about any system of payment whatever,
unless you plan to draft doctors or subject them to slavery.
Most likely, though, medical care personnel would want to
do business. If the co-op were large enough, it could start
putting people through medical school in exchange for a
commitment that they would later work for the co-op for
awhile -- there are plenty of people who want to be doctors
who don't have the money to go to medical school.
I don't think there are any real, objective, material
obstacles to medical care co-ops; I think the problem is
in people's minds, a consensual self-subjection to
domination and authority. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| *Anarcissie*... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 17, 3:23 pm, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:14:01 -0500, Anarcissie wrote:
That is not what will happen UNLESS it is the federal government doing
it.
So this raises the question of why state force is necessary to get
people to act in their own interest.
It actually isn't necessary. What part of "choice" and "option" is it
that you are not able to parse?
[/quote]
"Government", as in "This is not going to happen
unless it is the Federal government doing it."
My theory here is that if people acted rationally in their
own interest, they would long since have formed buyers'
cooperatives to purchase medical insurance, and
intervention of the government would have been
unnecessary.
Instead, what we observe is an authoritarian system,
private (capitalist) insurance companies, which are now
to be challenged by another authoritarian system, a
"Public Option" backed by the government. This is
supposed by some to be "socialist" although it in fact
has nothing to do with workers' or public ownership of
the means of production.
As I have pointed out previously, the model for medical
care is already authoritarian regardless of how it's paid
for, so perhaps people feel that one authoritarian system
can only be dealt with by another. In any case, when I
have mentioned buyers' cooperatives for medical care or
insurance in the past, I haven't usually gotten an argument;
I've usually gotten the equivalent of a blank stare, so this
small degree of controversy is quite refreshing. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Anarcissie wrote
[quote]Michael Coburn <mikcob at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
Cooperatives DO NOT work for the same reason that private
insurance companies do not work. Â They are fragmented in
the face of the suppliers. Â The suppliers of medical services
are much more united in their provisioning of the services than
are the MIDDLEMAN buyers of the services.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony
Providers
Ins. Co. A, Ins. Co. B, Ins. Co. C
Firm A, B, C, ... Firm M, N, O, .... Firm X, Y, Z, AA ...
Person A, B, C, ... Person AA, BB, ... Person AAA, BBB, ...
If you eliminate all the middle men you have a monopsony. Â If you
provide a single insurance company for all the less desirable
insurance company customers then that organization COULD represent
a much larger group than the smaller insurance company groups and
the even smaller company groups. This allows MORE market power to
the group not included in the current system. Â This is an example
of how competition does not serve in the medical arena in that the
Public Option will be able to control costs and the smaller
enterprises will not. Â Medicare as it exists is the _ONLY_
control on health care costs.
There is no reason, though, why the cooperatives couldn't
cooperatively combine into one big cooperative for the purpose of
buying medical services. According to your model they would be
strongly motivated to do so.
That is not what will happen UNLESS it is the federal government doing it.
So this raises the question of why state force is
necessary to get people to act in their own interest.
[/quote]
Essentially because people aint got anywhere else to go for medical services.
Its only state force that gets to specify how those providing medical services must operate.
[quote]I do not know how this plays into anti-trust laws that are being
changed in the bill. But so long as the books are totally
transparent and there is a rule limiting the amount that can be
stolen by the people administering the system, I don't really care.
There simply is no benefit to profits in a true insurance system
based on statistics. All concessions from the suppliers should
inure to the benefit of the policy holders and NOT to the benefit of
the administrators or the stockholders. The statistical certainty
of the system belies any supposed "innovation" that would constitute
a rationale for profit seeking.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Anarcissie wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
I can tell you how buyers' cooperatives work
OK, how do they work when it comes to health care?
The cooperative may act as a buyer of insurance, or it
may operate as an HMO. In either case the buyers make
payments to the cooperative as they would to an ordinary
company of the same type. The difference is that the
board of directors of the cooperative is elected by the
membership, and the cooperative does not strive to
profit from its customers but to break even. Hence
(one hopes) the administration of the HMO or
insurance company is focused on providing the
highest quality care for the lowest price possible.
If it doesn't seem to be doing this, it may be replaced
by the membership.
Trouble is that coops just plain dont work with health care.
Even kibbutz or monasterys were never stupid enough to try it with modern medicine.
Essentially because there is nowhere for them to get
health care except from the current providers of that.
Well, actually, there are some thriving cooperative HMOs.
[/quote]
They dont in fact get health care services significantly
cheaper than the insurance companys or medicare does.
[quote]In general, though, if hardly anyone wants to do it, cooperatives
are not going to be very large or have much bargaining power.
[/quote]
And there is no evidence that they have any bargaining power anyway.
Essentially because there is nowhere else to get the medical services.
[quote]This raises the question of why so many people prefer authoritarian models
[/quote]
Most dont. What they actually prefer is the employer
paying for their health care costs, or the govt doing that.
[quote]when that choice is objectively against a rational consideration of their interests,
[/quote]
HMOs dont in fact reduce health care costs.
[quote]a larger question than the issue of just medical care and insurance.
[/quote]
Yes, but its not something most care that much about when medicare,
the VA system and insurance does work quite adequately for most. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| *Anarcissie*... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 17, 3:45 pm, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:07:15 -0800, *Anarcissie* wrote:
On Nov 17, 3:01 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Anarcissie wrote:
There is no reason, though, why the cooperatives couldn't
cooperatively combine into one big cooperative for the purpose of
buying medical services. According to your model they would be
strongly motivated to do so.
Doesnt mean that those providing the medical services wouldnt just
ignore the combined coop which has nowhere else to go for the medical
services.
You could say that about any system of payment whatever, unless you plan
to draft doctors or subject them to slavery. Most likely, though,
medical care personnel would want to do business. If the co-op were
large enough, it could start putting people through medical school in
exchange for a commitment that they would later work for the co-op for
awhile -- there are plenty of people who want to be doctors who don't
have the money to go to medical school.
I don't think there are any real, objective, material obstacles to
medical care co-ops; I think the problem is in people's minds, a
consensual self-subjection to domination and authority.
You think that because it feeds your religious predisposition. The
_ONLY_ means by which health care costs can be controlled is by the
society deciding how much it is willing to spend as a society. A non-
profit government administered system is NO DIFFERENT than a nation wide
coop.
[/quote]
According to you they're different: the nation-wide co-op won't work,
but something instituted by the Federal government will. Indeed, if
whatever it is mandates what the society as a whole will spend on
all its aggregate medical costs, then it is fairly coercive, since it
must
apply this limit to everyone one of its population. However, I
believe
you're also saying that participation is voluntary, so there is some
contradiction there.
There is also a possible difference, mentioned by me previously,
having to do with authoritarianism. Power tends to corrupt, so
authoritarian systems tend to become corrupt unless they are
rigorously overseen. In the case of cooperatives, people voting
for the board of directors would have only their performance in
providing medical care in terms of quality and cost to consider,
whereas in voting for Congress all sorts of other issues will
arise, such as the ethnicity of the congressperson, which will
have absolutely nothing to do with oversight of the medical care
system. So I fear that the already established authoritarianism
of medical care, coupled with the authoritarianism apparently
proposed, will not limit rising costs and declining quality any
more than the present authoritarian system. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:14:01 -0500, Anarcissie wrote:
[quote]In article <hdtdr8320g9 at (no spam) news4.newsguy.com>,
Michael Coburn <mikcob at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:53:34 -0800, *Anarcissie* wrote:
On Nov 16, 4:53Â pm, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:55:32 -0800, *Anarcissie* wrote:
Cooperatives DO NOT work for the same reason that private insurance
companies do not work. Â They are fragmented in the face of the
suppliers. Â The suppliers of medical services are much more united
in their provisioning of the services than are the MIDDLEMAN buyers
of the services.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony
                Providers
     Ins. Co. A,      Ins. Co. B,        Ins.
     Co. C
    Firm A, B, C, ...  Firm M, N, O, ....    Firm X, Y,
    Z, AA ...
   Person A, B, C, ...  Person AA, BB, ...    Person AAA,
   BBB, ...
If you eliminate all the middle men you have a monopsony. Â If you
provide a single insurance company for all the less desirable
insurance company customers then that organization COULD represent a
much larger group than the smaller insurance company groups and the
even smaller company groups. This allows MORE market power to the
group not included in the current system. Â This is an example of how
competition does not serve in the medical arena in that the Public
Option will be able to control costs and the smaller enterprises
will not. Â Medicare as it exists is the _ONLY_ control on health
care costs.
There is no reason, though, why the cooperatives couldn't
cooperatively combine into one big cooperative for the purpose of
buying medical services. According to your model they would be
strongly motivated to do so.
That is not what will happen UNLESS it is the federal government doing
it.
So this raises the question of why state force is necessary to get
people to act in their own interest.
[/quote]
It actually isn't necessary. What part of "choice" and "option" is it
that you are not able to parse?
[quote]I do not know how this plays into anti-trust laws that are being
changed in the bill. But so long as the books are totally transparent
and there is a rule limiting the amount that can be stolen by the
people administering the system, I don't really care. There simply is
no benefit to profits in a true insurance system based on statistics.
All concessions from the suppliers should inure to the benefit of the
policy holders and NOT to the benefit of the administrators or the
stockholders. The statistical certainty of the system belies any
supposed "innovation" that would constitute a rationale for profit
seeking.
[/quote]
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:01:50 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
[quote]Anarcissie wrote:
On Nov 16, 4:53 pm, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:55:32 -0800, *Anarcissie* wrote:
Cooperatives DO NOT work for the same reason that private insurance
companies do not work. They are fragmented in the face of the
suppliers. The suppliers of medical services are much more united in
their provisioning of the services than are the MIDDLEMAN buyers of
the services.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony
Providers
Ins. Co. A, Ins. Co. B, Ins. Co. C
Firm A, B, C, ... Firm M, N, O, .... Firm X, Y, Z, AA ... Person A, B,
C, ... Person AA, BB, ... Person AAA, BBB, ...
If you eliminate all the middle men you have a monopsony. If you
provide a single insurance company for all the less desirable
insurance company customers then that organization COULD represent a
much larger group than the smaller insurance company groups and the
even smaller company groups. This allows MORE market power to the
group not included in the current system. This is an example of how
competition does not serve in the medical arena in that the Public
Option will be able to control costs and the smaller enterprises will
not. Medicare as it exists is the _ONLY_ control on health care costs.
There is no reason, though, why the cooperatives couldn't cooperatively
combine into one big cooperative for the purpose of buying medical
services. According to your model they would be strongly motivated to
do so.
Doesnt mean that those providing the medical services wouldnt just
ignore the combined coop which has nowhere else to go for the medical
services.
[/quote]
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Those providing the services really have nowhere else to go for income
because the people outside the "coop" aren't going to accede to
outrageous charges either. It depends UTTERLY on the market share held
by the coop(s), no matter how you define the coop(s) (government and/or
non profit coops so long as all the coops join hands).
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:04:09 -0500, Anarcissie wrote:
[quote]In article <7mf5j9F3hc2jdU1 at (no spam) mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Anarcissie wrote
tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
I can tell you how buyers' cooperatives work
OK, how do they work when it comes to health care?
The cooperative may act as a buyer of insurance, or it may operate as
an HMO. In either case the buyers make payments to the cooperative
as they would to an ordinary company of the same type. The
difference is that the board of directors of the cooperative is
elected by the membership, and the cooperative does not strive to
profit from its customers but to break even. Hence (one hopes) the
administration of the HMO or insurance company is focused on
providing the highest quality care for the lowest price possible. If
it doesn't seem to be doing this, it may be replaced by the
membership.
Trouble is that coops just plain dont work with health care.
Even kibbutz or monasterys were never stupid enough to try it with
modern medicine.
Essentially because there is nowhere for them to get health care except
from the current providers of that.
Well, actually, there are some thriving cooperative HMOs. In general,
though, if hardly anyone wants to do it, cooperatives are not going to
be very large or have much bargaining power. This raises the question
of why so many people prefer authoritarian models when that choice is
objectively against a rational consideration of their interests, a
larger question than the issue of just medical care and insurance.
[/quote]
I think you are revealing a religious bent here. A single payer system
is most certainly in the best interest of the overall society. If that
were not the case the Canadians would not be doing it. They need to do a
bit more outsourcing of high expense procedures to reduce wait times and
create more competitive services within Canada. But that is the way to
go.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:07:15 -0800, *Anarcissie* wrote:
[quote]On Nov 17, 3:01Â am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Anarcissie wrote:
There is no reason, though, why the cooperatives couldn't
cooperatively combine into one big cooperative for the purpose of
buying medical services. Â According to your model they would be
strongly motivated to do so.
Doesnt mean that those providing the medical services wouldnt just
ignore the combined coop which has nowhere else to go for the medical
services.
You could say that about any system of payment whatever, unless you plan
to draft doctors or subject them to slavery. Most likely, though,
medical care personnel would want to do business. If the co-op were
large enough, it could start putting people through medical school in
exchange for a commitment that they would later work for the co-op for
awhile -- there are plenty of people who want to be doctors who don't
have the money to go to medical school.
I don't think there are any real, objective, material obstacles to
medical care co-ops; I think the problem is in people's minds, a
consensual self-subjection to domination and authority.
[/quote]
You think that because it feeds your religious predisposition. The
_ONLY_ means by which health care costs can be controlled is by the
society deciding how much it is willing to spend as a society. A non-
profit government administered system is NO DIFFERENT than a nation wide
coop.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Anarcissie wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
There is no reason, though, why the cooperatives couldn't
cooperatively combine into one big cooperative for the
purpose of buying medical services. According to your
model they would be strongly motivated to do so.
Doesnt mean that those providing the medical services wouldnt just ignore
the combined coop which has nowhere else to go for the medical services.
You could say that about any system of payment whatever,
[/quote]
Nope, none of the others have a legal monopoly on who can provide medical services.
[quote]unless you plan to draft doctors or subject them to slavery.
[/quote]
No combined coop can do that.
[quote]Most likely, though, medical care personnel would want to do business.
[/quote]
Why should they when there is nowhere else to go for medical services ?
[quote]If the co-op were large enough, it could start putting people
through medical school in exchange for a commitment that
they would later work for the co-op for awhile -- there are
plenty of people who want to be doctors who don't have
the money to go to medical school.
[/quote]
No one in the entire modern first or second world has gone that route successfully.
Yes, its theoretically possible, but there must be real problems with that approach if no one has tried it.
In fact its only govts that have gone that route and not all that many of those either.
[quote]I don't think there are any real, objective,
material obstacles to medical care co-ops;
[/quote]
Corse there are, there is only one place they can get medical services.
[quote]I think the problem is in people's minds, a consensual
self-subjection to domination and authority.
[/quote]
Nope, the problem is that those providing medical services have a legal monopoly on doing that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Coburn wrote
[quote]Rod Speed wrote
Anarcissie wrote
Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
Cooperatives DO NOT work for the same reason that private
insurance companies do not work. They are fragmented in the
face of the suppliers. The suppliers of medical services are
much more united in their provisioning of the services than
are the MIDDLEMAN buyers of the services.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony
Providers
Ins. Co. A, Ins. Co. B, Ins. Co. C
Firm A, B, C, ... Firm M, N, O, .... Firm X, Y, Z, AA ... Person
A, B, C, ... Person AA, BB, ... Person AAA, BBB, ...
If you eliminate all the middle men you have a monopsony. If you
provide a single insurance company for all the less desirable
insurance company customers then that organization COULD represent
a much larger group than the smaller insurance company groups and
the even smaller company groups. This allows MORE market power to
the group not included in the current system. This is an example
of how competition does not serve in the medical arena in that the
Public Option will be able to control costs and the smaller
enterprises will not. Medicare as it exists is the _ONLY_ control
on health care costs.
There is no reason, though, why the cooperatives couldn't
cooperatively combine into one big cooperative for the purpose of
buying medical services. According to your model they would be
strongly motivated to do so.
Doesnt mean that those providing the medical services wouldnt just ignore
the combined coop which has nowhere else to go for the medical services.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[/quote]
I've told you repeatedly, you arent allowed to use your vibrator
in public, there are clearly children reading these newsgroups.
[quote]Those providing the services really have nowhere else to go for income
[/quote]
Corse they do, the non coops, stupid.
[quote]because the people outside the "coop" aren't
going to accede to outrageous charges either.
[/quote]
They clearly do that in hospitals every single day, essentially because
they arent thrilled about the idea of dying of their current heart attack etc.
[quote]It depends UTTERLY on the market share held by the coop(s),
[/quote]
Yes, and they will never be a big enough percentage of the market to matter.
Just like they arent with banking either.
[quote]no matter how you define the coop(s) (government and/or
non profit coops so long as all the coops join hands).
[/quote]
Govt aint a coop, stupid.
Yes, medicare does indeed have the market power to tell those providing
medical services what they will pay for those medical services. And those
providing those medical services are free to decide that what the govt is
prepared to pay for medical services is not enough and refuse to provide
medical services to medicare patients too.
Yes, that does work reasonably well to contain medical costs, but there will
never ever be anything like as many who are part of a coop, so that wont.
The most we have seen is HMOs and they have no effect on medical costs. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Coburn wrote
[quote]Anarcissie wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
I can tell you how buyers' cooperatives work
OK, how do they work when it comes to health care?
The cooperative may act as a buyer of insurance, or it may operate
as an HMO. In either case the buyers make payments to the
cooperative as they would to an ordinary company of the same type.
The difference is that the board of directors of the cooperative is
elected by the membership, and the cooperative does not strive to
profit from its customers but to break even. Hence (one hopes) the
administration of the HMO or insurance company is focused on
providing the highest quality care for the lowest price possible.
If it doesn't seem to be doing this, it may be replaced by the
membership.
Trouble is that coops just plain dont work with health care.
Even kibbutz or monasterys were never stupid enough to try it with modern medicine.
Essentially because there is nowhere for them to get
health care except from the current providers of that.
Well, actually, there are some thriving cooperative HMOs. In
general, though, if hardly anyone wants to do it, cooperatives are
not going to be very large or have much bargaining power. This
raises the question of why so many people prefer authoritarian
models when that choice is objectively against a rational
consideration of their interests, a larger question than the issue
of just medical care and insurance.
I think you are revealing a religious bent here. A single payer
system is most certainly in the best interest of the overall society.
If that were not the case the Canadians would not be doing it.
[/quote]
Its more complicated than that. Some try particular approaches for ideological reasons.
[quote]They need to do a bit more outsourcing of high expense procedures to
reduce wait times and create more competitive services within Canada.
But that is the way to go.
[/quote]
It is indeed. It remains to be seen whether the US political system is so
completely fucked that it cant manage to do what makes the most sense tho.
Clearly medicare did get up, but its far from clear that a universal medicare could right now politically. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Coburn wrote
[quote]Anarcissie wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
There is no reason, though, why the cooperatives couldn't
cooperatively combine into one big cooperative for the purpose of
buying medical services. According to your model they would be
strongly motivated to do so.
Doesnt mean that those providing the medical services wouldnt just
ignore the combined coop which has nowhere else to go for the
medical services.
You could say that about any system of payment whatever, unless you
plan to draft doctors or subject them to slavery. Most likely,
though, medical care personnel would want to do business. If the
co-op were large enough, it could start putting people through
medical school in exchange for a commitment that they would later
work for the co-op for awhile -- there are plenty of people who want
to be doctors who don't have the money to go to medical school.
I don't think there are any real, objective, material obstacles to
medical care co-ops; I think the problem is in people's minds, a
consensual self-subjection to domination and authority.
You think that because it feeds your religious predisposition.
[/quote]
Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?
[quote]The _ONLY_ means by which health care costs can be controlled is
by the society deciding how much it is willing to spend as a society.
[/quote]
Thats not right. The Japs do it just by legally mandating what can be charged for medical services.
[quote]A non-profit government administered system is NO DIFFERENT than a nation wide coop.
[/quote]
Very different actually. The most obvious difference is that coops are much more efficient
but dont have the legal power to specify what can be charged for medical services. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:34:08 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
[quote]Michael Coburn wrote
Anarcissie wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
There is no reason, though, why the cooperatives couldn't
cooperatively combine into one big cooperative for the purpose of
buying medical services. According to your model they would be
strongly motivated to do so.
Doesnt mean that those providing the medical services wouldnt just
ignore the combined coop which has nowhere else to go for the medical
services.
You could say that about any system of payment whatever, unless you
plan to draft doctors or subject them to slavery. Most likely, though,
medical care personnel would want to do business. If the co-op were
large enough, it could start putting people through medical school in
exchange for a commitment that they would later work for the co-op for
awhile -- there are plenty of people who want to be doctors who don't
have the money to go to medical school.
I don't think there are any real, objective, material obstacles to
medical care co-ops; I think the problem is in people's minds, a
consensual self-subjection to domination and authority.
You think that because it feeds your religious predisposition.
Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?
[/quote]
I don't think I have any religious predispositions, virus. But maybe you
could define this for me...
[quote]The _ONLY_ means by which health care costs can be controlled is by the
society deciding how much it is willing to spend as a society.
Thats not right. The Japs do it just by legally mandating what can be
charged for medical services.
[/quote]
Yet this is EXACTLY what I said, virus. Are the "Japs" not a society???
[quote]A non-profit government administered system is NO DIFFERENT than a
nation wide coop.
Very different actually. The most obvious difference is that coops are
much more efficient but dont have the legal power to specify what can be
charged for medical services.
[/quote]
That is a religious position in both ways. A single payer has the power
to control prices regardless of whether it is a government or not so long
as government allows it to operate. If it is the only payer then the
providers are bereft of options and choices regardless of whether
"gummint" is stamped on the outside of the box or not. A nation wide
coop is, in fact, "too big to fail".
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| *Anarcissie*... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 17, 9:51 pm, Joseph K. <ni... at (no spam) none.com> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:04:09 -0500, Anarcissie <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com
...
Well, actually, there are some thriving cooperative
HMOs. In general, though, if hardly anyone wants to do
it, cooperatives are not going to be very large or have
much bargaining power. This raises the question of why
so many people prefer authoritarian models when that
choice is objectively against a rational consideration
of their interests, a larger question than the issue of
just medical care and insurance.
Because of indoctrination?
[/quote]
If I knew the answer to that question, and how to
neutralize whatever it is, I'd be quite the anarchist
or socialist organizer!
But I don't. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Mar 16, 2010 1:44 pm
|
|